Concerning a comment by Dawkins, Bill writes:
"Saying that evolution cannot predict what man will be like in a million
years is quite reasonable. That's not the sort of prediction we are
talking about when we talk about the predictive power of theories.
(Besides, I really doubt the Lord will tarry another million years, so why
bother? :-))"
Of course, this is a valid point: One simply needs to replace "what man
will be like" by "what the solar system will be like" to see the
reasonableness of Bill's point. Chaos is a fact of life.
Then Bill adds:
"But if he said evolution has no predictive power at all -- meaning that
it cannot suggest further investigations and experiments, then I'd say
that was news."
I do wonder. What is the predictive content of evolution beyond broad
generalities? Perhaps it does "suggest further investigations and
experiments". But, as Niels Bohr once observed, prediction is hard
because it describes the future. (The precise quote is better than this,
but I could not find it on short notice. Does anyone remember it?)
As I complete this, I observe that John Burgeson has just made a similar
point.
Of course, one of the problems is time scale. Neither evolution nor
geology describe processes that move fast enough for predictions of the
future to be of much valFrom list Sat Sep 9 12:55:45 1995
Return-Path: <list>
Received: by Calvin.EDU (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA14552; Sat, 9 Sep 95 12:55:45 EDT
Resent-Date: Sat, 09 Sep 95 07:28:43 EDT
Old-Return-Path: <sjones@iinet.com.au>
Message-Id: <199509090027.IAA05260@classic.iinet.com.au>
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 95 07:28:43 EDT
From: sjones@iinet.com.au (Stephen Jones)
Reply-To: sjones@iinet.com.au (Stephen Jones)
To: "Evolution" <evolution@Calvin.EDU>
X-Mailer: PMMail v1.1 UNREGISTERED SHAREWARE
Subject: Re: Probability and ap...
Resent-Message-Id: <"UcVup3.0.oY3.8SSKm"@ursa>
Resent-From: evolution@Calvin.EDU
X-Mailing-List: <evolution@calvin.edu> archive/latest/1218
X-Loop: evolution@calvin.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: evolution-request@Calvin.EDU
Group:
On Thu 07 Sep 1995 10:40 CT Glenn wrote:
GM>Thanks for this point, Art. If this is the case, then THIS is
>where Christians should argue their case against the reductionist
>view of the origin of life. To argue against the origin of life from
>the probabilities simply is weak. I have shown a two step process, 1
>creation of a long string 2. random excision of sub-strings, which
>makes the finding of a particular functional unit much, much more
>likely. The probability argument is too weak to support the weight
>of any anti-evolutionary arguments.
I thought Glenn had conceded that his "long string" English-language
analogy was too simplistic? On 2 Sep 1995 he wrote:
"GM>Stephen presents the argument by Bradley and Thaxton which shows a
much greater set of problems than for language the D/L problem etc."
While I agree that some of the early YEC arguments (eg Gish, 1986) are
simplistic, later Progressive Creationist arguments are more
realistic. For example, Bradley & Thaxton point out that the analogy
is not with a sentence but:
"The production of biologically functioning proteins is analogous to
the production of a newspaper."
(Bradley W.L. & Thaxton C.B., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994,
InterVarsity Press, Illinois, p189)
They illustrate:
"Consider the problem of trying to write the sentence "How DID LIFE
BEGIN?" First, we consider the problem of having a mixtture of L, and
D- amino acids rather than all L-amino acids- This would be equivalent
to rotating some of the letters 180 degrees about an axis that runs
horizontally through the sentence. These upside-down letters would
represent D-amino acids in the sentence mixed with L-amino acids.
The problem that occurs when nonpeptide bonds occuring our assembly of
amino acid buildingblocks is illustrated next (figure 5.4 shows a
proper peptide bond). The proper placement of letters adjacent to one
another has been altered so that some letters have irregular proximity
to each other. The infomation in the sentence is further compromised.
Finally, the problem of improper sequence is illustrated by taking our
original statement and rearranging some of the letters, totally
obscuring the original message.
If all three of these problems were superimposed, the original message
would be impossible to decipher-there would be a total loss of
function. The same degradation of biological function results when a
polymer does not have all L-amino acids, all peptide bonds, and proper
sequencing of the amino acids in the polymer chain which is the
protein molecule.
The greatest problem, however, is how to draw only English alphabet
letters from an "alphabet soup" including many English letters
(representing amino acids) but also Chinese, Greek and Hebrew symbols
(representing other kinds of organic molecules in the prebiotic soup)
and get one each of H, O, W, L, F, B, G, N; two D's and E's; and three
L's."
(Bradley & Thaxton , pp189-190)
Perhaps Glenn could re-calculate his probability estimates, taking
into account B & T's factors above? Until he does, he can hardly
continue to claim his simple English-language sentence analogy
disproves the creationist argument from improbability against the
chance origin of life.
GM>I have said on numerous occasions that I don't think evolutionists
>have proven their case with the actual origin of life. That may very
>well have had to have been accomplished by God. But to argue that
>the probabilities make the naturalistic origin of life imposible, is
>simply not the case.
See above. Ross has some additional information that Glenn might
like to factor into his probabliity calculations:
"Life molecules are composed of proteins and nucleic acids. The
proteins, for example, are built from twenty distinct amino acids,
nineteen of which must be oriented in a left-handed configuration.
Moreover, most of these amino acids must be sequenced in a specific
manner and to a specific length. In the natural world over eighty
distinct amino acids exist, 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. The
problem for life assembly is to select from the randomly oriented
amino acids only those that are correctly oriented (step A to B), then
to select out only the life-specific amino acids (step B to C), then
to bond the amino acids together into short chains (step C to D), then
to bond the short chains together to make chains of the necessary
lengths, typically, several hundred amino acids long (step D to E),
and finally to select out those chains in the right order that have
the amino acids in the proper sequences (step E to F). Meanwhile, the
whole process must be protected so that the rate of formation remains
sufficiently above the rate of destruction."
(Ross H., "The Creator and the Cosmos", 1993, NavPress,
Colorado, p140)
Ross acknowledges that some sequences will work with more than one
amino acid, but on the other hand, other factors make the
non-creationist argument worse:
"Non-theists typically counter Morowitz odds by pointing out that not
every amino acid and nucleotide must be strictly sequenced for life
molecules to function. They are right, and thus the probability for
reassembly improves. But Morowitz also assumed that all the amino
acids were bioactive. In fact, only twenty of the more than eighty
naturally occurring amino acids are bioactive, and only those that are
left-handed can be used. So the probability declines again.
Furthermore, Morowitz assumed totally favorable conditions, only
constructive chemical processes operating. Under natural
circumstances, destructive chemical processes operate at least as
frequently as constructive chemical processes The bottom line is the
odds for the assembly of the simplest living entity actually grow
worse as more details are figured into the calculation."
(Ross, p141).
IMHO Glenn should not just breeze past these modern creationist
probability arguments against the chance origin of life, while
repeating old-style YEC arguments that are easier to refute. I would
like to see him take these examples above on board as the new highest
standard by which creationist OOL arguments are to be judged.
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------